❓ A parliamentary question regarding the State Administrative Tribunal's decision to overturn the Department for Child Protection's denial of a Working with Children card to a man previously convicted of child sex offences. The Minister defends the Tribunal's authority and highlights the appeal process.
AnsweredQoN 461Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
WORKING WITH CHILDREN PERMIT - STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
I refer to the article on page 7 of The West Australian headed “Man in child sex case granted permit to work with kids”. (1) How can the State Administrative Tribunal overturn the Department for Child Protection’s recommendation that a working with children card be denied to a man convicted of indecently dealing with a six-year-old girl? (2) Why does the State Administrative Tribunal have that authority? (3) Does the minister believe that this makes a mockery of due process where child protection is concerned? Hon SUE ELLERY
I refer to the article on page 7 of The West Australian headed “Man in child sex case granted permit to work with kids”. (1) How can the State Administrative Tribunal overturn the Department for Child Protection’s recommendation that a working with children card be denied to a man convicted of indecently dealing with a six-year-old girl? (2) Why does the State Administrative Tribunal have that authority? (3) Does the minister believe that this makes a mockery of due process where child protection is concerned? Hon SUE ELLERY
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. This matter is of considerable concern to me. (1) The Working with Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act contains a natural justice provision that includes an applicant’s right to apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of a negative notice decision. In this case the department did the right thing and issued a negative notice to a person who was charged with an offence and convicted. That conviction was subsequently overturned. (2) The State Administrative Tribunal’s legislative authority to consider applications for review of the department’s decisions was agreed to by Parliament prior to the proclamation of the act. (3) No. Working with children checks are much stronger than standard criminal record checks. Working with children checks consider both criminal convictions as well as charges that have not resulted in a conviction for sexual and/or violent offences relevant to children. Bureaucrats should not be allowed to make arbitrary decisions that cannot be appealed. This makes the laws strong and fair. The State Administrative Tribunal is required to reach what it considers to be the correct decision, and there are rights of further appeal to the Supreme Court. The Department for Child Protection has commenced an appeal to the Supreme Court in this matter and will strongly argue against the SAT decision. I have also directed the acting director to seek a stay of the decision.
(1) How can the State Administrative Tribunal overturn the Department for Child Protection’s recommendation that a working with children card be denied to a man convicted of indecently dealing with a six-year-old girl? (2) Why does the State Administrative Tribunal have that authority? (3) Does the minister believe that this makes a mockery of due process where child protection is concerned? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. This matter is of considerable concern to me. (1) The Working with Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act contains a natural justice provision that includes an applicant’s right to apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of a negative notice decision. In this case the department did the right thing and issued a negative notice to a person who was charged with an offence and convicted. That conviction was subsequently overturned. (2) The State Administrative Tribunal’s legislative authority to consider applications for review of the department’s decisions was agreed to by Parliament prior to the proclamation of the act. (3) No. Working with children checks are much stronger than standard criminal record checks. Working with children checks consider both criminal convictions as well as charges that have not resulted in a conviction for sexual and/or violent offences relevant to children. Bureaucrats should not be allowed to make arbitrary decisions that cannot be appealed. This makes the laws strong and fair. The State Administrative Tribunal is required to reach what it considers to be the correct decision, and there are rights of further appeal to the Supreme Court. The Department for Child Protection has commenced an appeal to the Supreme Court in this matter and will strongly argue against the SAT decision. I have also directed the acting director to seek a stay of the decision.
(2) Why does the State Administrative Tribunal have that authority? (3) Does the minister believe that this makes a mockery of due process where child protection is concerned? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. This matter is of considerable concern to me. (1) The Working with Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act contains a natural justice provision that includes an applicant’s right to apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of a negative notice decision. In this case the department did the right thing and issued a negative notice to a person who was charged with an offence and convicted. That conviction was subsequently overturned. (2) The State Administrative Tribunal’s legislative authority to consider applications for review of the department’s decisions was agreed to by Parliament prior to the proclamation of the act. (3) No. Working with children checks are much stronger than standard criminal record checks. Working with children checks consider both criminal convictions as well as charges that have not resulted in a conviction for sexual and/or violent offences relevant to children. Bureaucrats should not be allowed to make arbitrary decisions that cannot be appealed. This makes the laws strong and fair. The State Administrative Tribunal is required to reach what it considers to be the correct decision, and there are rights of further appeal to the Supreme Court. The Department for Child Protection has commenced an appeal to the Supreme Court in this matter and will strongly argue against the SAT decision. I have also directed the acting director to seek a stay of the decision.
(3) Does the minister believe that this makes a mockery of due process where child protection is concerned? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. This matter is of considerable concern to me. (1) The Working with Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act contains a natural justice provision that includes an applicant’s right to apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of a negative notice decision. In this case the department did the right thing and issued a negative notice to a person who was charged with an offence and convicted. That conviction was subsequently overturned. (2) The State Administrative Tribunal’s legislative authority to consider applications for review of the department’s decisions was agreed to by Parliament prior to the proclamation of the act. (3) No. Working with children checks are much stronger than standard criminal record checks. Working with children checks consider both criminal convictions as well as charges that have not resulted in a conviction for sexual and/or violent offences relevant to children. Bureaucrats should not be allowed to make arbitrary decisions that cannot be appealed. This makes the laws strong and fair. The State Administrative Tribunal is required to reach what it considers to be the correct decision, and there are rights of further appeal to the Supreme Court. The Department for Child Protection has commenced an appeal to the Supreme Court in this matter and will strongly argue against the SAT decision. I have also directed the acting director to seek a stay of the decision.
Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. This matter is of considerable concern to me. (1) The Working with Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act contains a natural justice provision that includes an applicant’s right to apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of a negative notice decision. In this case the department did the right thing and issued a negative notice to a person who was charged with an offence and convicted. That conviction was subsequently overturned. (2) The State Administrative Tribunal’s legislative authority to consider applications for review of the department’s decisions was agreed to by Parliament prior to the proclamation of the act. (3) No. Working with children checks are much stronger than standard criminal record checks. Working with children checks consider both criminal convictions as well as charges that have not resulted in a conviction for sexual and/or violent offences relevant to children. Bureaucrats should not be allowed to make arbitrary decisions that cannot be appealed. This makes the laws strong and fair. The State Administrative Tribunal is required to reach what it considers to be the correct decision, and there are rights of further appeal to the Supreme Court. The Department for Child Protection has commenced an appeal to the Supreme Court in this matter and will strongly argue against the SAT decision. I have also directed the acting director to seek a stay of the decision.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. This matter is of considerable concern to me. (1) The Working with Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act contains a natural justice provision that includes an applicant’s right to apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of a negative notice decision. In this case the department did the right thing and issued a negative notice to a person who was charged with an offence and convicted. That conviction was subsequently overturned. (2) The State Administrative Tribunal’s legislative authority to consider applications for review of the department’s decisions was agreed to by Parliament prior to the proclamation of the act. (3) No. Working with children checks are much stronger than standard criminal record checks. Working with children checks consider both criminal convictions as well as charges that have not resulted in a conviction for sexual and/or violent offences relevant to children. Bureaucrats should not be allowed to make arbitrary decisions that cannot be appealed. This makes the laws strong and fair. The State Administrative Tribunal is required to reach what it considers to be the correct decision, and there are rights of further appeal to the Supreme Court. The Department for Child Protection has commenced an appeal to the Supreme Court in this matter and will strongly argue against the SAT decision. I have also directed the acting director to seek a stay of the decision.
(1) The Working with Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act contains a natural justice provision that includes an applicant’s right to apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of a negative notice decision. In this case the department did the right thing and issued a negative notice to a person who was charged with an offence and convicted. That conviction was subsequently overturned. (2) The State Administrative Tribunal’s legislative authority to consider applications for review of the department’s decisions was agreed to by Parliament prior to the proclamation of the act. (3) No. Working with children checks are much stronger than standard criminal record checks. Working with children checks consider both criminal convictions as well as charges that have not resulted in a conviction for sexual and/or violent offences relevant to children. Bureaucrats should not be allowed to make arbitrary decisions that cannot be appealed. This makes the laws strong and fair. The State Administrative Tribunal is required to reach what it considers to be the correct decision, and there are rights of further appeal to the Supreme Court. The Department for Child Protection has commenced an appeal to the Supreme Court in this matter and will strongly argue against the SAT decision. I have also directed the acting director to seek a stay of the decision.
(2) The State Administrative Tribunal’s legislative authority to consider applications for review of the department’s decisions was agreed to by Parliament prior to the proclamation of the act. (3) No. Working with children checks are much stronger than standard criminal record checks. Working with children checks consider both criminal convictions as well as charges that have not resulted in a conviction for sexual and/or violent offences relevant to children. Bureaucrats should not be allowed to make arbitrary decisions that cannot be appealed. This makes the laws strong and fair. The State Administrative Tribunal is required to reach what it considers to be the correct decision, and there are rights of further appeal to the Supreme Court. The Department for Child Protection has commenced an appeal to the Supreme Court in this matter and will strongly argue against the SAT decision. I have also directed the acting director to seek a stay of the decision.
(3) No. Working with children checks are much stronger than standard criminal record checks. Working with children checks consider both criminal convictions as well as charges that have not resulted in a conviction for sexual and/or violent offences relevant to children. Bureaucrats should not be allowed to make arbitrary decisions that cannot be appealed. This makes the laws strong and fair. The State Administrative Tribunal is required to reach what it considers to be the correct decision, and there are rights of further appeal to the Supreme Court. The Department for Child Protection has commenced an appeal to the Supreme Court in this matter and will strongly argue against the SAT decision. I have also directed the acting director to seek a stay of the decision.
(1) How can the State Administrative Tribunal overturn the Department for Child Protection’s recommendation that a working with children card be denied to a man convicted of indecently dealing with a six-year-old girl? (2) Why does the State Administrative Tribunal have that authority? (3) Does the minister believe that this makes a mockery of due process where child protection is concerned? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. This matter is of considerable concern to me. (1) The Working with Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act contains a natural justice provision that includes an applicant’s right to apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of a negative notice decision. In this case the department did the right thing and issued a negative notice to a person who was charged with an offence and convicted. That conviction was subsequently overturned. (2) The State Administrative Tribunal’s legislative authority to consider applications for review of the department’s decisions was agreed to by Parliament prior to the proclamation of the act. (3) No. Working with children checks are much stronger than standard criminal record checks. Working with children checks consider both criminal convictions as well as charges that have not resulted in a conviction for sexual and/or violent offences relevant to children. Bureaucrats should not be allowed to make arbitrary decisions that cannot be appealed. This makes the laws strong and fair. The State Administrative Tribunal is required to reach what it considers to be the correct decision, and there are rights of further appeal to the Supreme Court. The Department for Child Protection has commenced an appeal to the Supreme Court in this matter and will strongly argue against the SAT decision. I have also directed the acting director to seek a stay of the decision.
(2) Why does the State Administrative Tribunal have that authority? (3) Does the minister believe that this makes a mockery of due process where child protection is concerned? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. This matter is of considerable concern to me. (1) The Working with Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act contains a natural justice provision that includes an applicant’s right to apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of a negative notice decision. In this case the department did the right thing and issued a negative notice to a person who was charged with an offence and convicted. That conviction was subsequently overturned. (2) The State Administrative Tribunal’s legislative authority to consider applications for review of the department’s decisions was agreed to by Parliament prior to the proclamation of the act. (3) No. Working with children checks are much stronger than standard criminal record checks. Working with children checks consider both criminal convictions as well as charges that have not resulted in a conviction for sexual and/or violent offences relevant to children. Bureaucrats should not be allowed to make arbitrary decisions that cannot be appealed. This makes the laws strong and fair. The State Administrative Tribunal is required to reach what it considers to be the correct decision, and there are rights of further appeal to the Supreme Court. The Department for Child Protection has commenced an appeal to the Supreme Court in this matter and will strongly argue against the SAT decision. I have also directed the acting director to seek a stay of the decision.
(3) Does the minister believe that this makes a mockery of due process where child protection is concerned? Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. This matter is of considerable concern to me. (1) The Working with Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act contains a natural justice provision that includes an applicant’s right to apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of a negative notice decision. In this case the department did the right thing and issued a negative notice to a person who was charged with an offence and convicted. That conviction was subsequently overturned. (2) The State Administrative Tribunal’s legislative authority to consider applications for review of the department’s decisions was agreed to by Parliament prior to the proclamation of the act. (3) No. Working with children checks are much stronger than standard criminal record checks. Working with children checks consider both criminal convictions as well as charges that have not resulted in a conviction for sexual and/or violent offences relevant to children. Bureaucrats should not be allowed to make arbitrary decisions that cannot be appealed. This makes the laws strong and fair. The State Administrative Tribunal is required to reach what it considers to be the correct decision, and there are rights of further appeal to the Supreme Court. The Department for Child Protection has commenced an appeal to the Supreme Court in this matter and will strongly argue against the SAT decision. I have also directed the acting director to seek a stay of the decision.
Hon SUE ELLERY replied: I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. This matter is of considerable concern to me. (1) The Working with Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act contains a natural justice provision that includes an applicant’s right to apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of a negative notice decision. In this case the department did the right thing and issued a negative notice to a person who was charged with an offence and convicted. That conviction was subsequently overturned. (2) The State Administrative Tribunal’s legislative authority to consider applications for review of the department’s decisions was agreed to by Parliament prior to the proclamation of the act. (3) No. Working with children checks are much stronger than standard criminal record checks. Working with children checks consider both criminal convictions as well as charges that have not resulted in a conviction for sexual and/or violent offences relevant to children. Bureaucrats should not be allowed to make arbitrary decisions that cannot be appealed. This makes the laws strong and fair. The State Administrative Tribunal is required to reach what it considers to be the correct decision, and there are rights of further appeal to the Supreme Court. The Department for Child Protection has commenced an appeal to the Supreme Court in this matter and will strongly argue against the SAT decision. I have also directed the acting director to seek a stay of the decision.
I thank the honourable member for some notice of the question. This matter is of considerable concern to me. (1) The Working with Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act contains a natural justice provision that includes an applicant’s right to apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of a negative notice decision. In this case the department did the right thing and issued a negative notice to a person who was charged with an offence and convicted. That conviction was subsequently overturned. (2) The State Administrative Tribunal’s legislative authority to consider applications for review of the department’s decisions was agreed to by Parliament prior to the proclamation of the act. (3) No. Working with children checks are much stronger than standard criminal record checks. Working with children checks consider both criminal convictions as well as charges that have not resulted in a conviction for sexual and/or violent offences relevant to children. Bureaucrats should not be allowed to make arbitrary decisions that cannot be appealed. This makes the laws strong and fair. The State Administrative Tribunal is required to reach what it considers to be the correct decision, and there are rights of further appeal to the Supreme Court. The Department for Child Protection has commenced an appeal to the Supreme Court in this matter and will strongly argue against the SAT decision. I have also directed the acting director to seek a stay of the decision.
(1) The Working with Children (Criminal Record Checking) Act contains a natural justice provision that includes an applicant’s right to apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of a negative notice decision. In this case the department did the right thing and issued a negative notice to a person who was charged with an offence and convicted. That conviction was subsequently overturned. (2) The State Administrative Tribunal’s legislative authority to consider applications for review of the department’s decisions was agreed to by Parliament prior to the proclamation of the act. (3) No. Working with children checks are much stronger than standard criminal record checks. Working with children checks consider both criminal convictions as well as charges that have not resulted in a conviction for sexual and/or violent offences relevant to children. Bureaucrats should not be allowed to make arbitrary decisions that cannot be appealed. This makes the laws strong and fair. The State Administrative Tribunal is required to reach what it considers to be the correct decision, and there are rights of further appeal to the Supreme Court. The Department for Child Protection has commenced an appeal to the Supreme Court in this matter and will strongly argue against the SAT decision. I have also directed the acting director to seek a stay of the decision.
(2) The State Administrative Tribunal’s legislative authority to consider applications for review of the department’s decisions was agreed to by Parliament prior to the proclamation of the act. (3) No. Working with children checks are much stronger than standard criminal record checks. Working with children checks consider both criminal convictions as well as charges that have not resulted in a conviction for sexual and/or violent offences relevant to children. Bureaucrats should not be allowed to make arbitrary decisions that cannot be appealed. This makes the laws strong and fair. The State Administrative Tribunal is required to reach what it considers to be the correct decision, and there are rights of further appeal to the Supreme Court. The Department for Child Protection has commenced an appeal to the Supreme Court in this matter and will strongly argue against the SAT decision. I have also directed the acting director to seek a stay of the decision.
(3) No. Working with children checks are much stronger than standard criminal record checks. Working with children checks consider both criminal convictions as well as charges that have not resulted in a conviction for sexual and/or violent offences relevant to children. Bureaucrats should not be allowed to make arbitrary decisions that cannot be appealed. This makes the laws strong and fair. The State Administrative Tribunal is required to reach what it considers to be the correct decision, and there are rights of further appeal to the Supreme Court. The Department for Child Protection has commenced an appeal to the Supreme Court in this matter and will strongly argue against the SAT decision. I have also directed the acting director to seek a stay of the decision.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.